Talk:History of Japan/Archive 2

History vs. Pre-history etc

Hi, as it stands, the first paragraph begins with

 "The history of Japan probably started around 100,000 BCE"

I'd like to point out that perhaps it's not useful or accurate to start a history article with a date 100000 BCE like this... The reason why, in general, is that the study of history is typically restricted to the era of 'written records', as the Wikipedia article on "History" will even state. There can be probably some fudging, because written records can date slightly earlier events or have relation to slightly earlier events. In short, history and pre-history will be divided by written records.

Please take a look at the wikipedia article on History of England, in that, the upper-right table indicates prehistory is before 43 BC, and history in the years after. This date of 43 BC is generally due to Roman era records. And again, (somewhere geographicaly closer to Japan) in the article History of China, the article begins by saying that "The history of China is detailed by historical records dating back to 1500 BC".

I think it's a bit problematic and misleading to state that history began 100,000 years ago, because if by history you mean purely archaeological evidence, then why stop there? History will blend right into pre-history, and then into archaeology, without any meaningful demarcation.

There is the more casual usage of the word 'history', of course. That is, history is just the sequence of all events from beginning to end. In which case, the history of Japan goes back to the Big Bang and all time afterward. But as an informative and scholarly Wikipedia entry, I think this article should be amended with something more accurate, more specific, referring to what is canonically defined as "history".

I propose something like

"The earliest records of Japan date back to 600 B.C.E., according to the Chinese source commonly known as the Gishiwajinden, or the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms. In the text, the country of Yamataikoku is mentioned, which was said to be ruled by the Queen Himiko."

I think this adds to the quality of the article in its specificity, and in exposing the reader to the Himiko story. Even here, there is lots of controversy as to whether Yamataikoku even existed because of lack of archaeological evidence. The idea that we have any idea of the specific events of 100,000 BCE, as the word 'history' demands, is somewhat unreasonable. Any comments? Wilgamesh 03:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. That opening has been bugging me for some time as well. Although I don't think your suggested opening is correct. The earliest mention of the kingdom of Wa is in the Later Han Chronicles, which were compiled in the fifth century AD and cover the early first to early third centuries AD. The specific mention of Japan and the famous "golden seal" dates to 57 AD.-Jefu 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. I just realized I wrote 600 BCE, which is ridiculous. Sorry about that. And furthermore, I think you're right, there are written records of Japan pre-dating Himiko. I'll have to read some more to be able to write something meaningful.. someone else mod it in meantime? Wilgamesh 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm suprised there appears to be no mention of the Nanking/Nanjing incident in the section on WWII. Would anyone more knowledgeable than myself care to add some information on this subject? [28/06/05]

Can we get a better section on the history of the Japanese Empire? Its such an important an interesting part of Japanese history. Also something on the influence of Marxism in Japan. I'll be happy to do some content if somebody would like to get it started. 11:39 Shanghai Time 17 Dec 2004

man! all i want to know is when did the education become in place!

I think it would be a better idea to have the last two eras be Showa and Heisei. Unfortunately, Showa only redirects to Hirohito and the his page already has a navigation bar for the Emperors. Anyone have any ideas? Emperorbma

Fixed (a long time a go now)...

Enjoy the Japanese history table... Emperorbma 06:58 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I believe Yayoi period needs to be dated back 500 years earlier or at least allow the change I made to timeline stand. These are announcements made by the reasearch team headed by Imamura.

http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/03_5now/030530b.html

http://www.asahi.com/english/arts/TKY200309300215.html

http://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/kenkyuu/news/ (The complete report but in Japanese)

Revth 05:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the table

I don't mean to be rude, but that table needs to go. It ruins the layout of the page, it renders incorrectly in smaller resolutions. Whoever put it there needs to change it so it works.

World War I to End of World War II

The Japanese sought awful destruction. They raped, pillaged, and killed.

I slashed out these two lines. I can only read this as "Japanese people" wanted to destroy and this is a serious bleach of NPOV policies of Wikipedia, a completely baseless accusation. Revth 02:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm not going to change it myself, but the chart at the bottom isn't very accurate: the "Meiji Era" was not the "period" after the "Edo Period"; rather it was a continuation of a system that is rarely used nowadays to denote any time before that, and we are not currently in a "period" that could be equated with the "Edo Period".

dates?

Maybe add the years after the headings (like XXX period (xxxx-xxxx)) ? would make looking up parts easier (clem 17:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)).

cleaned up

For some reason a large section of the article was duplicated after the "external links" section; I removed the duplicate text.

"The earliest -- in the world" in the picture captions

Is this verified? Seems like a pretty bold claim. Maybe they are the oldest ones that we have found, but claiming that you know that something is the "oldest in the world" esp. in a period well before recorded history(especially recorded history in Japan) is a pretty bold claim, and I can't see any corraborating sources that show beyond a doubt that the items in question are among the "oldest"

For Jomon pottery, please see that article, and also the Talk Page on Tokyo National Museum article, where various additional references are given. Datation is by radio-carbon. For the polished blades, the reference is Imamura ("Japanese Archeology"). Regards PHG 03:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't really answer the question, is it provably the oldest pottery in the world? Not really, it's the oldest DISCOVERED pottery in the world. Probably is the oldest pottery, but that really isn't completely provable(and probably never will be). The captions seem to assert that the are unequivocably the oldest and that is debatable.

Sure. How about, for example, "the oldest known pottery in the world"? PHG 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good

Early 20th century history, Wars with China and Japan

"The war with China made Japan the world's first non-Western modern imperial power, and the war with Russia proved that a Western power could be defeated by a non-Western State, thus questioning the idea of European superiority prevailing in most countries dominated by Western powers. All sorts of political movements in different territories around the world that were opposing European occupation or intervention, started to use Japanese victory in their propaganda and speaches. The global struggle against colonialism and imperialism benefited from Japan's experience."

I'm editing this. From what I've read (and what I will cite) Japan's early conquests were rarely a source of inspiration, and stuff like this was more used as propaganda for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. I'd love to debate this though. Woogums 10:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

POV, First World War to End of World War II, and World War II

The First World War to End of World War II and World War II sections are POV, and needs serious editing and rewriting. It emphasises certain selected facts to portray Japanese militarism in a more favourable light, whilst leaving out disagreeable facts. It presents events in a way which says that Japanese aggression is justified. LDHan 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)